Master Fenrir wrote:Attack details. For some reason, I've always found those really interesting to look over on similar sites.

What exactly do these details show?

It shows you where they attack and what their dice were. This can be useful in situations such as this:

4 player standard:-Red has three borders of Green, Blue, and Yellow.-Players come back and see that he has 4 where he had a 3 previously, so they know he dropped and took a swing and went 0/2, but don't know who he attacked.

Attack details would show which territory he tried to attack.

Hmm, that sounds very interesting. I'm glad I voted for it.

I assume in fog of war it would still show how many armies they lost, just not where they attacked?

I'm guessing. The other site I played on didn't have fog of war, so I'm not sure how it would work. Or it may just not show the details unless they hit a territory you can see. Attack details in from the fog might defeat the purpose of fog of war. If you have enough time on your hands, you could track players' moves from the start of the game and know their troop count at all times. You wouldn't know where exactly they are, but you'd know how strong they are. It might not be such a good idea for fog games.

There's a difference between promoting some ideas that lack may have left out, and completely derailing the thread with descriptions and conversations of ideas that lack has decided to put aside for later updates, and completely ignore the given options.

well this suggestion is not on the list but just a thought. Since i am thinking you will be perusing this thread then i will post it. Although i am not a fan of classic art and shapes, it appears that the game play is allowed less the risk ( image ) . So my thoughts on making a classic map with an image would be to view the map from a different view. With the western hemisphere being located on the left side of the screen and the right on the right. THE NEW MAP would have The americas in the center of the screen and then working the image from there. or something to that matter.

Kotaro wrote:There's a difference between promoting some ideas that lack may have left out, and completely derailing the thread with descriptions and conversations of ideas that lack has decided to put aside for later updates, and completely ignore the given options.

I think you're both right and wrong. Certainly this isn't the place for people to complain about mods. However, of the choices offered in the poll, that's pretty weak beer for something described as "the next big update". Initial army placement might be interesting, tho I'd be very curious as to how it's supposed to work within the CC framework. But everything else is just a tweak, a fix, a minor upgrade, or a novelty. Like I said, weak beer for those of us hoping for substantial upgrades to the CC experience.

You say not a big update on a content level. I say a HUGE update on coding.

Look at the options. Coding it so you can let someone into your account and do things without abuse? Changing how the entire system works on deployment? Coding more attack details to include a larger, much larger, base of information? Ability to click the map and use that system? Giant Battle Royales, and more of them? Fixing the loophole on freestyle without pissing off half the community?

Content wise, these aren't the largest. Coding wise, these could all be gigantic projects.

In terms of account sitting, when I played Travian, you could designate account sitters by typing their username into an area on your control panel. This person could then log into your account using their password. I don't know if this idea has been suggested, but it sounds like a good idea and worked fine when I played travian. Also, the sitter had limited access, so depending on the restrictiveness, I would assume probably no posting in the forums on the account you are sitting.

danfrank wrote:well this suggestion is not on the list but just a thought. Since i am thinking you will be perusing this thread then i will post it. Although i am not a fan of classic art and shapes, it appears that the game play is allowed less the risk ( image ) . So my thoughts on making a classic map with an image would be to view the map from a different view. With the western hemisphere being located on the left side of the screen and the right on the right. THE NEW MAP would have The americas in the center of the screen and then working the image from there. or something to that matter.

danfrank wrote:well this suggestion is not on the list but just a thought. Since i am thinking you will be perusing this thread then i will post it. Although i am not a fan of classic art and shapes, it appears that the game play is allowed less the risk ( image ) . So my thoughts on making a classic map with an image would be to view the map from a different view. With the western hemisphere being located on the left side of the screen and the right on the right. THE NEW MAP would have The americas in the center of the screen and then working the image from there. or something to that matter.

safariguy5 wrote:In terms of account sitting, when I played Travian, you could designate account sitters by typing their username into an area on your control panel. This person could then log into your account using their password. I don't know if this idea has been suggested, but it sounds like a good idea and worked fine when I played travian. Also, the sitter had limited access, so depending on the restrictiveness, I would assume probably no posting in the forums on the account you are sitting.

Just what I saw on other sites that seem to work.

i dont care what the little penguin says. the fact that you have that there is idiotic.

danfrank wrote:well this suggestion is not on the list but just a thought. Since i am thinking you will be perusing this thread then i will post it. Although i am not a fan of classic art and shapes, it appears that the game play is allowed less the risk ( image ) . So my thoughts on making a classic map with an image would be to view the map from a different view. With the western hemisphere being located on the left side of the screen and the right on the right. THE NEW MAP would have The americas in the center of the screen and then working the image from there. or something to that matter.

If you will take 2 seconds to look at where the army circles are compared to classic shapes. You will find they are nearly in the same spots. Sure North America and South America are on the right and not the left but the game play looks the same.

safariguy5 wrote:In terms of account sitting, when I played Travian, you could designate account sitters by typing their username into an area on your control panel. This person could then log into your account using their password. I don't know if this idea has been suggested, but it sounds like a good idea and worked fine when I played travian. Also, the sitter had limited access, so depending on the restrictiveness, I would assume probably no posting in the forums on the account you are sitting.

Just what I saw on other sites that seem to work.

i dont care what the little penguin says. the fact that you have that there is idiotic.

get a new sig.

How is this a bad idea? the poll clearly says a designated account sitter so you don't have to give out your pw. This idea allows you to designate an account sitter who uses their password, not yours. I think it's a valid idea.

I like Blitz's ideas on the new medals.2nd-Initial army placement- Does this means we can place our own troops?If it does,then that would be great.If not,is there anyway this could be done?It would eliminate the old saying "What a horrible drop".You would be in control of your placement of troops on the map.Also,get rid of the double turns.

I think that while those features are all well and good, an XML update is just what the doctor ordered. Map variety is getting rather...lacking, and some new code to mess with would liven things up right nicely.

I voted in favour of the "Attack details in game log" because I would love to see a replay feature. However, one other feature intrigues me. What exactly is meant here by "initial army placement"? I went to Lack's To-do list, but the topic link there seems broken.

I presume we will not get to choose our own starting territories, since some maps require specific starting positions. So, I guess the system will choose the starting positions, but will only put one troop on each spot, and then the players would get to decide how many more from their initial allotment to put on each spot. But what are the mechanics of this step?

One troop per player in sequence? (Wouldn't that take a terribly long time?)

One shot by a player to put as many as troops as desired on a spot, with no going back, again in sequence?

Some other sort of sequential procedure that I have not imagined?

Some sort of freestyle placement? (If so, let's get very clear about who goes first after this is done. We don't want another squabble about double turns.)

More Battle Royales would be great, but I have another suggestion, and maybe this has already been suggested?? How about giving the group or clan mods the ability to set up four or five private Battle Royales per year to be played by members of their clans or group only. They could perhaps just be standard games with 20 slots or so. I'm sure that many clans would be interested in something like this, and could even use them for internal clan or group champions.etc.